To Paul Offit: An invitation to a public, evidence-bounded discussion
I’m proposing a structured, public, evidence-bounded discussion addressing one narrow question: "Did the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have a clear net mortality benefit?"
An invitation to a public, evidence-bounded discussion
Dr. Paul Offit has argued that scientific questions should be resolved in peer-reviewed venues rather than on debate stages. In principle, I agree.
In practice, however, the public has no direct way to evaluate whether the conclusions of influential COVID-19 vaccine papers are actually supported by the underlying data and methods.
For that reason, I’m proposing a structured, public, evidence-bounded discussion focused exclusively on the published literature addressing one narrow question:
Did the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines show a clear net mortality benefit based on the studies available in the peer-reviewed literature?
Proposed format
Duration: 60 minutes (or as long as Dr. Offit thinks is sufficient to cover the topic)
Scope: Peer-reviewed papers only
Preparation: Each participant submits up to three papers in advance; the reference list is shared publicly at least 14 days before the discussion
Structure:
Brief presentation of each paper’s claims and methods
Focused discussion of assumptions, bias, and interpretation
No appeals to authority, intent, or policy—only what the papers actually demonstrate
Equal talk time for both sides
The goal is not to “win” a debate, but to allow a technically literate audience to see—clearly and transparently—how different experts interpret the same published evidence.
To acknowledge the time commitment, I will make a substantial donation to a charitable organization of Dr. Offit’s choosing. The discussion, transcript, and referenced materials will be made publicly available in full.
If Dr. Offit would prefer not to participate in a direct discussion with me, I am equally open to having the discussion with another academic expert of his choosing, provided the discussion follows the same evidence-bounded format.
Given the importance of this topic to public trust in medicine, I believe a careful, transparent examination of the published literature—conducted in the open—would be of real value.
100% admiration for your work.
Offit is paid by pharma. First evidenced-based question to him would be, 'how much money has pharma given you to push vaccines?'. Plotkin has earned some $200 mn. He is Offit's mentor. His conflict of interest must be declared.
Offit won't debate. He does not know much.
Good idea. You present the gold-standard RCTs done by Pfizer and Moderna themselves, and let Dr. Offit present some junk science healthy vaccinee bias ridden retrospective studies, for the world to see. As you know, both the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs had 15-17% increases in non-COVID deaths that completely negated the COVID death decreases, as in a net effect of "4 killed for every 3 saved".